Last night I was browsing Youtube and a video about the entire COPPA debacle was recommended to me. I had heard something about COPPA last week and Youtube's changes, but never really looked into it as it seemed like another change blown out of proportion (which it kind of is). I watched the video and didn't really learn much more so I watched another video, and another, and another... and all of the video's had the same information and I became none the wiser, so I started doing my own investigation into COPPA and Youtube's changes. 

I went to certain news outlets who had covered it like the Verge, but again, felt like no one really did their research and everyone only had superficial information taken from two different sources, if not only just the one source.

So, I delved even deeper, and properly started to do my own research and I came across some information I found that I had to share.

Before we start, I am not an American citizen so all these rules and regulations are new to me. And also, if you think that websites like Youtube and Facebook don't let you sign up when you are under the age of 13 because "they care about the children": think again.

I started on FTC's own website: Complying with COPPA: Frequently Asked Questions. In here it states a lot of things, mainly vague things, but what stood out to me is that they kept repeating the following: collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from children under 13. And I think this explains what COPPA is and stands for: they want websites, online services, and mobile apps to not collect, use, or disclose personal information from children under 13. This seems mainly to protect children from targeted advertisements: recognizing that younger children are particularly vulnerable to overreaching by marketers and may not understand the safety and privacy issues created by the online collection of personal information. 

Very specific and weird rule, especially considering that the FTC does not seem to care about the rest of the population of the planet whose data gets mined and sold as if it's free real estate, but I will keep that for another future article.

But then something came to mind. When did the FTC implement these rules? It seems like a very recent development, but wait... it isn't. On the FTC website it states that the last time the COPPA FAQ was edited was on March 20, 2015.

I read the entire COPPA FAQ btw, and found out some more in-depth information which makes me believe that most content creators on Youtube wont be in trouble with the FTC directly (more on that later). That said tho, Youtube surely is going to make the life of many of their content creators very difficult after getting in trouble with the FTC this year: Google and YouTube Will Pay Record $170 Million for Alleged Violations of Children’s Privacy Law.

I would say read the press release I linked because it is a hoot. It basically describes how Youtube did not want to acknowledge that certain content creators, or parts of their website, were targeting kids. Yes, you read that right: Youtube, who literally has a YOUTUBE KIDS APP, who told their creators to be more "child-friendly" refused to acknowledge towards the FTC that their website provides content that are specifically targeting children. Oh boy. 

In the press release they also note that Youtube told big toy companies like Hasbro and Mattel in presentations that "YouTube is the “#1 website regularly visited by kids" and "YouTube is today’s leader in reaching children age 6-11 against top TV channels". I swear, I am not making this up.

Of course, someone caught wind of Youtube's misbehavior and reported it to the FTC, who investigated Youtube, and ultimately fined them for $170 million. Next to that, there is a proposed settlement that Youtube (and Google) have to implement a system "that permits channel owners to identify their child-directed content on the YouTube platform". The changes we see happening now are literally because of Youtube's incompetence to obey the law.

To complete my research I went to Wikipedia's "Children's Online Privacy Protection Act" entry. I found out that COPPA was enacted in 1998 and became effective in the year 2000. So this means that Youtube had almost 20 years to implement the COPPA rules, which is funny because Youtube only exists for 14 years. I don't know what amateur lawyers Youtube has hired, but wow, have they not been doing their job. 

Even Facebook acknowledged COPPA with our dear reptile king, Mark Zuckerberg, stating in 2011 that he is opposed to it (of course he is). Actually, many people find COPPA to be outdated. Youtube and Google could've acknowledged COPPA and probably worked together with the FTC and propose a more updated version, but since they'd rather just look away like a stubborn cat, and pretend it doesn't exist, all content creators are now going to pay for it.

What many people don't understand about COPPA, and one of the reasons why they are freaking out, is because COPPA is so damn vague. But after I did some more digging (cough comprehensive reading cough) I started to realize what it all exactly means.

What mainly got the ball in my head rolling was when I read this on their Wikipedia entry:

In February 2004, UMG Recordings, Inc. was fined US$400,000 for COPPA violations in connection with a web site that promoted the then 13-year-old pop star Lil' Romeo and hosted child-oriented games and activities, and Bonzi Software, which offered downloads of an animated figure "BonziBuddy" that provided shopping advice, jokes, and trivia was fined US$75,000 for COPPA violations.

But also looking into the FTC cases against the following companies:

The FTC has brought a number of actions against website operators for failure to comply with COPPA requirements, including actions against Girls' Life, American Pop Corn Company, Lisa Frank, Inc., Mrs. Fields Cookies, and The Hershey Company.[17]

When looking at all these examples I found out that the FTC was very specific about why they fined these companies; all these companies had something specific that would attract younger kids and harvest their data. Mrs. Fields and Hershey, for example, had websites mainly targeting general audiences. However, parts of Mrs. Fields site "offered birthday clubs for children 12 or under and provided birthday greetings" and Hershey had candy-related sites that were directed to children, and both failed to meet the COPPA standards to obtain parental consent to harvest the child's data.

All these companies could've evaded fines if they would've properly complied with COPPA's rules, but usually would half-ass it or knowingly hold on to personal information, instead of deleting it, of children under age 13 without first obtaining parental consent.

It is very clear that the FTC is mainly targeting companies who consciously hold on to data they have collected from children under the age of 13, or companies who consciously market to children under 13 but don't comply to COPPA.

To translate this back to Youtube I see it as this:

Does NOT have to comply with COPPA: A kid under the age of 13 might click on a Lets Play from a Youtuber because they recognize the game in the thumbnail. The video is just the Youtuber playing the game, being themselves, and talking like a normal person, maybe making adult jokes here and there.

Does have to comply with COPPA: A kid under the age of 13 will more likely click on a Lets Play from a Youtuber because the thumbnail is very colorful with animated characters that are mainly targeting children. The video is a younger Youtuber playing a game directed at children in a child-like manner and using simple or dumbed-down language.

I kind of failed to properly describe the does have to comply with COPPA one because to me it seems so clear that it is about content that is very clearly targeted towards kids, or content that can easily be confused as kids content. This is how I understand the FTC ruling. Youtube on the other hand is more vague on how they imply the FTC's ruling, and I think we have to wait and see how it plays out. I think overall most channels will be just fine.

In conclusion,

They start the article off by saying:


And continue with comparing numbers between male and female doctors and specialists. And even continue with racial biases. Of course the white male doctor earns more on average than the female doctor and racial pay gap is apparently also a thing, although they don't touch on that subject in the rest of the article.

The paragraph that comes after this is the most important because it reads:



Especially the last part here I find interesting because they literally explain the reasoning why women get paid less. There is no "pay gap". You essentially determined that yourself just by writing that one sentence. The funniest thing is that after this paragraph there is a sentence that says:


How do you mean other factors are likely at play? It is as clear as it is stated: men are more likely to gravitate toward high-paying areas within medicine. That literally seems like it is the main reason. Further in the article it is mentioned that some associate professor of dermatology at Harvard worked on an article about how to close this pay gap. She states that "there's a lot of implicit bias at play". And then gives an example that male colleagues were given better operating schedules. That is the only point that is made. But whether this quote is a personal anecdote or actually based on research is not made clear.

To me it seems that if you want to study gender pay gap between doctors you need to find a male doctor and a female doctor working at the same hospital doing the same job with the same specialties and then comparing their income. When it turns out the female doctor earns less, you need to look at all the variables at play like work times, specialties, and how many patients both doctors have. You can't just say male doctor 1 and female doctor 2 don't earn the same so it is gender pay gap. Do these people even know how proper research is conducted?

Look, I would love to believe in gender pay gaps, but I need to see hard evidence. Every single article I've read, every single research that is being done, just shows that there is bias, and most journalists take this opportunity to make outrageous headlines that are based on thin air. And since most people don't want to read the actual research or article, most people base their beliefs on clickbait titles and that is upsetting. Because if there is an actual gender pay gap we need to do something about it, but bias research like this one seemingly makes it very difficult to take any further research done on the subject serious.

They should've just called the article: The Gender Pay Gap for Doctors Seems To Have a Valid Reason. Here’s What That Reason Is. You're welcome time.com. You're a shitty website anyways with short, poorly researched articles. Don't know why I actually visited your website but alas, guess the clickbait is working.

We all know that Twitter is full with virtue signaling fairies, dragons, and snowflakes, but yesterday I started losing my patience when one exceptional creature tweeted this:

In short, this adult man is having an emotional breakdown over Trump. Not only that but he tweets about Trump on the daily, and now all of a sudden his PTSD worsens because of Trump and yet he surrounds himself only with Trump on Twitter. Talking about being stuck in a loop... And hey normally, I wouldn't care. It is just some twitter rando who probably thinks they are a good person when they pretend to be a good person on the internet. But this guy just pushed my buttons. I don't know if it was the added fact that he got so many (positive) replies, retweets, likes, or the fact that he has over 10k followers. I just got really annoyed. If this was a 16 year old kid, or it wouldn't have gotten so much traction, I would've probably still been annoyed, but I would've brushed it off. This guy is a fully grown adult seemingly making fun of PTSD and people are almost praising him for it. Now, I'm not saying he is "faking" his mental illnesses for attention.  I dug through the comments and he replies this to someone:

Ok ok, I get it, those are horrible events to go through, maybe not something one should share on the internet so casually but who am I to judge. But when such events happen to you, you get help, and you try to make yourself better. You can't stay stuck in a pity party feeling sorry for yourself all the time. Why is he even so obsessed over Trump's problems when he has so many problems in his own life? To me it seems he has some type of mental deficiency cause there is no way in heck his mental problems make him this brainless. But then when I read a bit more through his comments he claims he is a mental health professional. For real?

So by his own words he is depressed, suffers from PTSD and agoraphobia, hasn't slept well since 1992, and he is a mental health professional. But he thinks it is a good idea to put himself in harm's way by surrounding himself with stressful news which worsens his mental health?! Not only that but he makes something that isn't about him in the slightest, about himself and his mental problems... What an ignorant POS.

It seems that he is some type of mental health masochist where he likes to inflict copious amounts of stress upon himself so it worsens his mental state of mind? What the fuck is wrong with this man. Being mentally ill is one thing, PTSD is a shitnugget to deal with, but you are just pity partying yourself and it's tragic as you are a fully grown man. He is mentally cutting himself. 

His problem seems to be with Trump's "racist" wall, which is all good and well, most people hate that wall anyways. But why is he so affected by it? He is sitting high and dry in his house, mind him, in his closet. He has food, water, shelter, electricity; and he reads about Trumps' stupid wall on the internet (I assume) and now he is throwing a pity party for himself in the closet crying that he is stuck in a loop because of a wall that is miles away and doesn't affect his personal life enough to destroy it.

It is one thing to show empathy towards your fellow human beings and feel bad about what Trump is doing with the wall, or be upset that he is squandering money. It is another thing to manchild-cry about it in your closet. I get it that he is a mentally ill individual, probably beyond depression, anxiety, and PTSD problems, and I shouldn't "prey upon the weak" or whatever. But he has 10k followers. His twitter is public. He obviously likes the attention. So here is some.

Besides all that, the positive reinforcement he got for that tweet made me sick. So many people wishing him well~ and even people sharing their own story of how "Trump is triggering or worsening their mental health". Luckily there were a few people who laughed at Chris his tweet, and a few people questioned his sanity. I replied to one of these tweets and as a result I got blocked by Chris since well... pointing out the truth makes you a bad guy I guess.

In closing,

I am going to address this towards Chris: you are garnering attention towards yourself about the wall, while the wall isn't about you. You aren't directly affected. The wall isn't hurting you. Stop putting the attention on yourself. Why are you talking about it on the internet pretending like you are the victim in all of this. If you care so much about that fucking wall being build maybe do some more "activism" beyond crying in your fucking closet like a 16 year old child who just lost a Fortnite game. Everyone has their own struggles in life, that's what life is about. Work on your goddamn mental health and stop throwing pity parties. This wall isn't about you.